Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MechaPilot" data-source="post: 7465373" data-attributes="member: 82779"><p>I've seen more of the edition wars than I care to have seen. I've always tried to stay objective when edition war stuff comes up, because I've played and greatly enjoyed every edition of D&D from BECMI to 5e. Each has its own great parts, its own flaws and foibles, and its own missed opportunities. I've also tried my best to stay out of edition war discussions when they come up, because they never end well for anyone but those who enjoy making others miserable.</p><p></p><p>However, I've seen a LOT of people bash 4e on the premise that martial characters are magical only to then turn around and claim that 3e's (Ex) powers aren't magical just because the book says so. If one is magical because it breaks the laws of physics, then so must both be; if one is not-magical because the book says so, then so must both be. Whichever opinion anyone holds is their opinion, and that's fine, but it's the cross-edition hypocrisy of accepting one as non-magical on the basis of the book saying so but holding the other to be magical that garners my disrespect.</p><p></p><p>And, to be frank, I can't recall if that specific brand of hypocrisy has been bandied about in this discussion. However, I think it says a great deal about the nature of edition warriors (which I don't consider myself one) that I've seen the cross-edition hypocrisy so closely and repeatedly tied to the factually incorrect assertion that martial exploits are spells. Maybe I've seen it so often as part of that assertion that I'm seeing it present when it's not, but repetition does build expectation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MechaPilot, post: 7465373, member: 82779"] I've seen more of the edition wars than I care to have seen. I've always tried to stay objective when edition war stuff comes up, because I've played and greatly enjoyed every edition of D&D from BECMI to 5e. Each has its own great parts, its own flaws and foibles, and its own missed opportunities. I've also tried my best to stay out of edition war discussions when they come up, because they never end well for anyone but those who enjoy making others miserable. However, I've seen a LOT of people bash 4e on the premise that martial characters are magical only to then turn around and claim that 3e's (Ex) powers aren't magical just because the book says so. If one is magical because it breaks the laws of physics, then so must both be; if one is not-magical because the book says so, then so must both be. Whichever opinion anyone holds is their opinion, and that's fine, but it's the cross-edition hypocrisy of accepting one as non-magical on the basis of the book saying so but holding the other to be magical that garners my disrespect. And, to be frank, I can't recall if that specific brand of hypocrisy has been bandied about in this discussion. However, I think it says a great deal about the nature of edition warriors (which I don't consider myself one) that I've seen the cross-edition hypocrisy so closely and repeatedly tied to the factually incorrect assertion that martial exploits are spells. Maybe I've seen it so often as part of that assertion that I'm seeing it present when it's not, but repetition does build expectation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
Top